Description image

Blackmagic Cinema Camera Shows the Canon 5D Mark III Who's Boss

It’s hard to really explain to some people the advantages of one camera system over another. There are many people who just glaze over when you start talking about 12-bit RAW and ProRes 4:2:2 HQ. If you are one of those people, then we’ve got a comparison for you, which gives you pretty pictures and hard evidence to compare two similarly priced cameras: the Blackmagic Cinema Cinema at $3,000 and the Canon 5D Mark III at around $3,500. The test was conducted by OneRiver Media, who also recently took the camera for a go in this short film. Click through for the test video.

It is HIGHLY recommended that you download the video as the original uploaded file is far better quality than the embedded video here:

Now, the conclusions from the video should be pretty obvious even to someone that isn’t experienced in filmmaking. While many will still say, no one can see sharpness from a compressed web video, after going through the generation loss, the higher the quality of your original source, the better the final product will look. With a DSLR you’re already starting with what should be an export codec only, H.264. If you could start with a much higher quality internal codec, could the final uploaded quality be improved? Yes, but you’re still limited by the image the camera can produce. That’s where the Blackmagic Cinema Camera’s quality comes in.

Let’s just take for a minute, all things being equal (even though they aren’t). If the 5D Mark III could also output 10-bit ProRes and 12-bit RAW, what kind of quality could we get? Would it be better? Absolutely, but it still wouldn’t address the two biggest reasons the BMCC has a superior image: resolution and dynamic range. The former is the one most people will use to say that the camera doesn’t matter much if videos are just going to the web. I disagree depending on the initial compression, but it’s more valid than claiming the latter doesn’t matter. Dynamic range is the first thing that even an inexperienced person will notice, and it’s one of the reasons people still love film over digital – as not all digital cameras have caught up with film in the dynamic range department. It often subconsciously affects the image. Humans are actually very aware of brighter points in an image — even when we’re not looking for them — and it’s often the first place someone’s eye will go when the overall image is darker.

The Blackmagic Cinema Camera’s superior dynamic range will give a more cinematic image just for that reason alone. Sure, with the Mark III you can shoot with a flat profile and underexpose to keep some of those highlights from blowing, but there is only so far you can push a compressed 4:2:0 8-bit image. Yes there are plenty of negatives about actually using the camera, some of which have been addressed by the Micro 4/3 mount option for the camera, but which image is better should be obvious to even inexperienced shooters after watching the video. Many will still complain about the sensor size, and that they’d rather wait for the Super 35mm version of the camera, but I can tell you right now, it’s not coming anytime soon. Blackmagic chose the sensor precisely because of the low cost, dynamic range, and resolution, and there aren’t any publicly available sensors that check off all of those boxes at the Super 35mm level. Even with all of the new cameras that have been announced over the last week or so, this camera should still edge out all of them based on the factors above.

Here is another video showing off the superior quality of the Cinema Camera, this time Jon Carr took Vincent Laforet’s test camera for a spin:

Other cameras might be better in low-light and might be easier to work with thanks to bigger sensors and removable internal batteries, but if you’re willing to work around those issue, you’re going to get an image for $3,000 that rivals cameras costing at least 10 times as much. As always, use the right camera for the right job, and if the BMCC doesn’t fit your shooting style, it might actually make your life more difficult. If you’ve been using DSLRs, however, and you’re used to working with certain limitations, the BMCC might just be your next camera.


Related Posts

  1. John Brawley Shows off More Graded Material from the Blackmagic Cinema Camera
  2. Wide Angle Lenses Compared on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera
  3. How Far Can You Push the Blackmagic Cinema Camera in Low-Light?


We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 175 COMMENTS

  • BMC taking a steamy dump on Canon’s chest.

    now if they can only ship it!

  • This video has convinced me in buying the BMCC over the 5D mark2

  • Videoscaper on 09.21.12 @ 5:00PM

    Just FYI the Comparing the Cinema Camera link takes you to the OneRiver Media Blog site.

    Can you please provide a correct link for the video download.

    • Sorry about that, but for future reference you can also click on the Vimeo logo in the corner of the video, or right click on the video and click, watch on Vimeo.

      • Videoscaper on 09.21.12 @ 5:11PM

        Thanks for the info Joe.

        I’m thankful for this site.

        You guys keep the good stories coming.

  • I have the Cinema Camera, I have been shooting around NY for the past week and I have to say the image really is amazing. The color, sharpness and this may sound crazy but it has this amazing film grain that i love. I have a 5d as well and the more i use it and work with footage from other cameras the more you realize just how soft the image is.

    • Can you please give us more info on your workflow and what you find are some of the advantages/disadvantages compared to what you normally shoot with?

  • Absolutely THE best comparison review I’ve seen to date!
    Well done! Just brilliantly put together.

  • Just curious about 2 things –
    1. Audio recording.
    2. Frame rates.

    • trackofalljades on 09.21.12 @ 5:11PM

      If you check out the Phillip Bloom video review, he goes into both in pretty much all the detail there is to talk about.

  • he didn’t mention if he used the “ALL-I ” codec….a lot of ppl forget about this gem….highest rate of current dslr’s…i bet he used the low-res ipb setting….

  • john jeffreys on 09.21.12 @ 5:34PM

    Now do a comparison for stills functionality and watch the BMCC crumble.

    horse for courses, guys.

    • The BMCC is not being touted as a still image camera but a cinema camera – your argument is moot. That being said, the 5dmkII/III takes a larger still image from RAW but I would be hard pressed to say that the image ‘crumbles.’ The BMCC still has more dynamic range and is sharp. You will not resolve the detail that a 22 MP sensor does in RAW still mode but we know that.

      • AD Stephens on 09.21.12 @ 6:12PM

        It hurts me to say this, but john jeffreys comment is obviously meant to be sarcastic/hilarious. Of course the BMCC is not for stills: otherwise it would be called the Black Magic Cinema and Stills Camera, aka BMCaSC, which provides something more akin to an educational title rather than a piece of filmmaking equipment.

        • john jeffreys on 09.21.12 @ 6:58PM

          I was being like half sarcastic. I actually do think that the comparison is a little unfair, the 5D is designed to be a photo camera that ALSO takes video as a side feature. The BMC is a purely video camera. Of course it’s better.

          • What should they be comparing the BMCC to? Maybe a FS100 or AF 101 for being in the same price range and all are strait up video cameras? i don’t know any video camera that has caught the indie film community’s imagination like the 5d has, while still being in the $3-$5grand ball park.

          • Well… how about comparing the BMC to a C300? Cinema camera vs. “cinema” camera, seems fair no?

          • Yeah… I’m both dumb and retarded but let’s see a direct image comparison because I’ve not been impressed with the images I’ve seen from the C300, not at all. The rest of the stuff you mention may be a problem for you, I don’t know why you’d assume that is the case for anybody else?

          • Eh… what happened to John Jeffreys message?

          • I don’t know Nobody. Compaing a $3 grand camera to a $14 grand camera isn’t…um… Fair..not even ballpark fair. I think Peter down below has a much better idea, compaing it to the c100 with a recording drive as soon as that comes out.

          • Isn’t fair to which manufacturer? The Canon is not a $14,000 camera in any respect other than price; clicking through to EOSHD yesterday there was a blog post about Canon admitting 1DX and 1DC are identical in terms of visual hardware. Joe makes the (valid) point in his write up that the Black Magic rivals the image quality of cameras ten times the price.

            Surely a comparison to a C300 is as valid as one to a 5D?

          • Lliam Worthington on 09.22.12 @ 7:18AM

            Nobody’s right. Errm, I mean the guy with the username “nobody” is right.
            Comparing it to the C300 is very legitimate. Especially for indie film makers who might be interested in seeing the benefits of capturing/working with RAW as opposed to the sharpening etc all being done in camera. As well as how the DR and colorimetry stack up.

          • +1 to what Drew says. Doesn’t make sense at all to compare a $3k cam to a $14k one. Just doesn’t.
            Also, the boundry between a video camera and a stills camera has been blurred and shifted and distorted so much in last couple of years that Nobody’s argument doeasn’t hold up anymore.

          • ok compare it to a gh2 then that is 1/3 of the price. and in prores please
            it will then be like comparing red scarlet to bmc. in raw

            price is a factor, or its not.
            workflow is a factor, or its not.
            if one is not interested in the above factors then any comparison is valid.
            if one is, then one must think about more things than just the camera body.

        • I am a photojournalist, and when everybody else was complaining about the soft video and high cost of the 5D3 we were super excited about the 61 focus points, amazing low light performance, 6fps etc etc. But as the market continually evolves many news websites are starting to use video instead of, or to supplement photos, video starts to become much more important. It seems to me that to do run&gun video and great stills at the same time, the 5D is still the best camera for the job. BUT since I am starting to look at doing music videos and short films, I might pick up BMCC instead of a second 5D body :)
          The point being use the right tool for the job at hand.

    • I think it’s a Cinema Camera, not the best for stills right? It’s optimized for video so why even compare it’s stills capability?.

    • Then do a comparison from a video shoot where the client asks you to pull a still from a segment of footage you show them. Horses for courses.

    • Lets say BMCC can shoot RAW photos 30fps in 2K….and canon MIII cant do that, right?

  • The biggest difference in measuring sharpness between these two cameras is going to be Canon low pass filter…BM’s design choice to leave that out will certain allow their camera to resolve more detail…but I would like to see some side-by-side moire tests for balance.

    Definitely impressed though. Still waiting on my pre-order :(

    • Taking out the low-pass filter in the Mark III proved no discernable increase in sharpness back when people were entertaining that idea, so the resolution of the video in the Canon comes down to their downscaling method.

  • I can’t wait to try this camera out. I’ve shot 7d/5d2/GH2 since they came out, and most recently shot some on 5d3, but I just can’t get over the image out of this camera. Though a lot of us may differ on our favorite hammer in the toolshed, I think we can all agree on one thing – it’s certainly a fun time to be a filmmaker.

  • I look forward to the BMCC vs GH3 video! Good stuff.

  • The problem I’m dealing with is, I don’t know which BMCC to get. I want to be able to use my Canon lenses on it, but if the opportunity comes up, I’d like to have the option of putting PL mount lenses.

    • you can always put a canon adaptor on the m4/3 version. not the other way around.

      m4/3rds will give you the post options.

    • Get the micro 4/3 mount. Unless all your canon lenses is electric. I personally only have one manual lens. However I still plan on getting the m 4/3 mount because I can get some Rokinon Cine lenses to make up for it.

    • Depends on your style of shooting as well. If you go handheld run & gun a lot, electronic lenses with working IS may come in handy. And the video proved you can get pretty wide with EF lenses (even if they’re not f1.2) so if you’ve already got EF lenses, might make sense.

  • OK, I’m officially putting this guy in charge of any camera reviews to come. That was a quite pleasant review.

  • Erwin (Netherlands) on 09.21.12 @ 7:13PM

    That One River Media comparison video of the BMC is the best I’ve seen so far.

  • Thats It!!! I’m buying one !

  • I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of canon fanboys suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

  • Interesting, this is the first thread with no “I’m sticking with my 5d”

    • I am sticking with my 5D3 as much of the time I’m shooting events at ISO5000 and up. For other work, I’m evaluating upgrades…C100, FS700 w/Metabones, BMCC EF…

    • john jeffreys on 09.21.12 @ 8:44PM

      I’m sticking with my 5D kit and renting whatever other camera I need on a project to project basis. Eventually, I’ll drop 5-7k on a used red one M kit.

    • I’m sticking with 5DIII for weddings: low-light, physical controls, ergonomics, shallow depth, wide angles. Plus, it takes photos.

    • I’m sticking with my 7D… Magic Lantern Baby!!

    • I’m sticking with my 5D… for another 40 minutes while I box it up and ship it to my EBay auction’s winner.

      Seems like if you want to emulate big boy work that involves a big boy workflow (and for second unit feature work) this is a no brainer. Holy moly.

    • I’m sticking with my Canon EOS 5D Mark III – so far, to me, the Blackmagic Cinema Camera looks much more “video” – yes, the camera is sharper and many times i’d love the 5D3 to be sharper (and you can apply some sharpening to the 5D3 image), but what I’m seeing so far with the Cinema Camera just doesn’t appeal to me visually

  • I really loved the “Zoom, Zoom Zoom” part. The detail, color, sky and heat waves rendered from the BMCC blew me away! Again, the BMCC got a wider shot than a 16mm on a full frame and simultaneously got a far longer shot.

    Let’s not mention the SAME BOKEH – heck, much better -not-blown-out bokeh – when he put the 50mm on and stepped back 6 feet.

    I’m so glad I went with my gut instinct months ago and pre-ordered. This is coming from a FF Canon fanboy. And hey, my 5dmkII is still bomb for stills and a great b camera for my BMCC.

  • Marco Solorio Shows Philip bloom Who’s Boss…. :)

  • Yes Canon gifted BMD with this opportunity by artificially creating a pricing ladder across their line for downsampling and codec quality. This is well established now.

    But Canon has a product the BMCC really ought to be shot out against: the C100, ideally with an external recorder such as BMD’s Hyperdeck Shuttle 2. That will yield direct-to-ProRes at 8 bit 4:2:2, and with a much larger and more light-sensitive sensor. Yes you will only get 11 stops of dynamic range that way, but most people I think will give up the stop in trade for the better low-light.

    Then you say, wait, that camera is more than double the price of the BMCC! ($3000 vs. $6500, plus $350 for the recorder) OK but compare the total cost of ownership between similarly equipped units. The BMCC has no EVF, no top or side handle, no XLR inputs, no preamps with 48V for audio, no replaceable batteries, no ND filters, no articulating display, etc. Find comparable ones to what’s standard on the C100 and total up your cost.

    Then compare the ergonomics between the two options. That’s not even close to being a contest. BMD is just starting to explore what a camera is supposed to do…you can’t even delete a bad take, much less know what your aperture setting is.

    Sorry if I’m advocating Canon (I am not fond of the company philosophy certainly) but this review, while helpful (and look at that false color in the BMCC chart shots) comes off a bit as an informercial and I think the comments section on a blog is where you should find balance. I am impressed with the BMCC but the C100 is a formidable riposte especially using one of BMD’s recorders with it to circumvent the cripple codec.

    • You know Peter thats a good point – Id love to see a shoot out between the C100 with hyperdeck and the BMC. As you say when you start to add in all the bits you need the price will be a lot closer and the images not that dissimilar. Though nothing will ever touch 12 bit raw for ultimate grading.

      In terms of production ready firmware and reliability Id bet the C100 would be better – but we will need to wait until December to see.

  • A question, can I use canon lenses on the BMCC MFT version? via adapters right?

  • Analog Machine on 09.21.12 @ 9:37PM

    Will be very interesting to see a comparison between BMCC and the Nikon D800 (Clean HDMI + Atomos Ninja)

    • What about the D600 – should have almost identical video with uncompressed HDMI for only $2k plus $1k for atmos = same price as BMC :-)

      • d600 cannot change f-stop in live view

      • Uncompressed HDMI usually means 8 bit 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 – a far FAR cry from RAW 12 bit RGB full color. D600 is not 2.5k resolution, it has moire, aliasing, doesn’t resolve 1080P, not even 720P. The only DSLR actually resolving 1080P is the Gh2 and Gh3.

        No comparison between BMCC and DSLR’s except Gh3 – which should be close in sharpness but still not compare with RAW, color or dynamic range.

  • Waiting on my preorder!!! Wish someone had a clear idea of how long these supply chain hang-ups will impact “first wave” of shipments…

  • Yes the 5DM3 is soft – but Canon engineers ‘intentionally’ made it that way so you can ‘sharpen to taste in post’ :-)

    • Read up on downsampling theory and report back. I think you will find that there actually is logic to that statement. Getting rid of aliasing and moire to that degree does involve softening of the detail, and leaving sharpening to taste in post is what you would want to do.

      Note this brings up a critical problem with the Solorio video: he is using Adobe RAW converter for the BMCC, and yet he is using minimum sharpening on the 5D3, with no sharpening in post. That’s not fair as the RAW converter will sharpen the image as part of its downsampling to 1080p. Consider that…it’s important.

      This is why the Zacuto shootout let the DP’s maximize each camera in practice. Stuff is often best left to post. Post skill is a big part of this. The BMCC RAW converters are still poor and will likely improve greatly (note the green cast and the false color). The 5D3 footage is going to get an improvement because the word is Magic Lantern has found out how to record uncompressed on it. And the 5D3, with those settings, is soft and needs post help to shine…we’ve known this since day 1.

      • I don’t see any tell tale signs of an unsharp mask on the BMCC footage…sorry, calling BS on you. When you’ve sharpened 5D footage to look as good as the BMCC footage, get back back to me.

        • Again, please study downsampling. Or perhaps NFS can invite an expert on it to post here and describe what is going on behind the scenes in various processing pipelines. You will likely be surprised at the side effects of various innocent looking steps that do alter your dynamic range, sharpness, resolution, etc. I was disappointed the Solorio video didn’t compare RAW with ProRes on the BMCC, but even if it did, similar factors would still come into play, just in-camera in realtime as it is on the 5D3 footage.

          • Downsampling involves removing detail via a low pass filter…that’s the opposite of sharpening! Downsampled images look sharp because they start with way more detail than the final image can show, so the final image can be optimized to be as detailed as possible. Downsampling does *not* typically apply a sharpen effect (e.g. increasing contrast on edges).

          • Also, if you want to get all scientific, why don’t you sharpen some 5d footage to PROVE what you’re saying? Pretending to be smarter than everyone without actually saying anything (“Go study downsampling”) isn’t an argument, it’s a logical fallacy. If you’re smart, prove it by demonstrating you know your stuff. If the 5d can be sharpened to look as good as the BMCC, prove it by doing it!

          • I don’t doubt that Canon has succeeded in intentionally destroying the 5D3 image enough to make it worse than the BMCC no matter what you do in post. But more could have been done in post to make this comparsion a lot closer, perhaps close enough for the vimeo stream to fool us.

            I would like to have a BMCC and resolution charts to run tests on, and the time to do it. I don’t think they will send me one though…I don’t have a popular review blog, and I’m not going to make fawning informercials for them like the one above. I would like a video equivalent of DPReview or DxOMark that shows us in reproducible detail what these tradeoffs are, what’s going on inside these tools, and how best to work with a given implementation, at least objectively at the current state of the art. We don’t have that, and we shouldn’t give too much applause to things masquerading as that.

            Subjectively do whatever you like and be happy.

          • Okay, well look…there’s nothing surprising about these results. The BMCC is much closer to its deliverable format, and it has no optical low pass filter so there’s much more control over how much detail is eliminated in the downscale. Furthermore, Black Magic probably knows more than most companies about downscaling and image quality in general given that they produce the finishing tool used for most hollywood films (I expect the quality of the ProRes to be very close to what we see from the Raw in this video based off of Philip Bloom’s BMCC film).

            There are plenty of issues with the BMCC, but image quality is unlikely to be one.

        • You cannot make sub-par 720P footage (more like 680 lines actually) look like 2.5K footage. With your logic, we should of never of gone HD. 720×480 is just as good as 1080P right? Just sharpen in post right?

          I’m sorry – actually I’m not, I’m just gonna say it: your ‘logic’ is skewed and on the verge of offensive. The reason I’m a little heated is because this argument and logic flies in the face of factual data we have – testable data.

          Why have standards like 720p and 1080p? Why have resolution charts, why test sensors and imaging devices? Why specifically determine AA filters? WHY USE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY?

          If it only is a click in post with unsharpen mask then forget the rest! But that is simply not logical and flies in the face of science, technology and physics.

          • Are you done? Ya done? Done?

            Once you’re done, you might come to appreciate your underestimation of the target of your satifying flight of vitriol.

  • This will sell a LOT od BMCCs! That lowlight test is amazing! So much sharpnes an detail even in lowlight! And to think the BMCC was working on lover ISO (1650 for the 5D, 800 ASA for the BMCC) while both at F2.5. Blew me away!

    • Reminds me of the wise words a man by the name of John Brawley once said months ago: something to lines of higher dynamic range allows for lower ISO’s and similar exposure. Just like using film. Cranking the high ISO on DSLR’s at night opens the shadows but creates glowing gobs of blown out light for your streetlamps and signs.

      Guess John knew what he was talking about!

  • I’m quite happy to see the pleasing and promising results of the BMC. I may end up ordering a 2nd in MFT mount when it arrives :) 2 BMC’s and then who knows what next.

    • I might be off here, but couldn’t you get one with the MFT mount, and then use one of those electric MFT>Canon mount adapters so you could still have aperture control? Still no IS or AF, of course. I think Redrock makes one, right? And Birger was talking about it forever ago?

  • I have mostly Canon glass, and a Zeiss Distagon 35mm F/2 for canon, electronic aperture only, so is makes more sense to get the EF mount instead of the MFT mount correct?

  • The BMC, higher image quality aside its an idiotic camera for the low budget guerilla independent filmmaker. It’s just not set up for any kind of verite style work. It is a locked down tripod camera with a post that will leave you in tears. To the filmmakers buying it for their narrative feature, just how many do you intend to make a year? After setup with rigging you are looking at $6k. The amount of posts dedicated to this camera baffle me. Obviously I don’t get.

    • You know the exact type of work you’re talking about used to be made with Super 16mm cameras, and I don’t think I need to explain the difficulties shooting with those.

      With the BMCC you can shoot ProRes HQ or when they update the firmware, DNxHD – how are those going to leave you in tears in post? They are both designed to be post-production codecs! There isn’t currently another camera with this amount of dynamic range and native RAW, ProRes, and DNxHD for under $10,000. Better yet, there isn’t a larger sensor camera that can give you 10-bit anywhere near $3,000, or $6,000 for that matter.

    • I completely agree… that you don’t get it.

      ” its an idiotic camera for the low budget guerilla independent filmmaker”
      What are you basing this statement on? The 5DII revolutionized the low budget community. This camera is a direct response to it. It manages to give a far superior camera priced cheaper than it’s competition.

      “It is a locked down tripod camera with a post that will leave you in tears.”
      Having the full control of raw or instantly shooting into edit friendly ProRes doesn’t work for you? What would you define as a better post situation?

      I’m fully aware that cameras are tools and we each have our own needs, but I didn’t see one valid, constructive critique in your entire post.

      • I agree with Dan. Not Daniel. The number of people buying this to use purely as a raw cinema camera must be vanishingly small. In this price range what you want is versatility and ease of use, which the BM camera doesn’t have. As for tears in post, again one has to question how many will have the stomach – and deep pockets – for raw post processing. To do it justice you need expensive hardware, time, storage capacity and so on. Expect a lot of people to end up using prores most of the time – and wondering why they didn’t get something that was less like a pig lump of pain in the arse to use in the first place.

      • I mean how many people who can only afford this camera are only doing narrative style shooting and not also needing to pay their way doing corporate or documentary or photo/video journalism, say, and probably having to do this solo? The comparison with 16mm isn’t really apt. The point it that this is the kind of work which has in recent years been done on DSLRs – and that has been barely tolerable, therefore there is genuine hunger for something better fitted to the diversity of working practices with which – in my conjecture – most shooters contend.

        • Thank you Graham! A voice of reason in this deluded insanity. The camera has undergone many comparison and film tests but has yet to be used by a filmmaker under the conditions I expect to encounter. I have directed a feature with S16 (rented Aaton), and yes it was a bitch (mostly the expensive post) but worthwhile as the footage was always beautiful.
          If I had to shoot another low budget narrative I would find the cash, rent and shoot FAST 10-15 days with a rented RED or Alexa. I’m on my 3rd Documentary shooting in 8 months with a GH2 and there is no way I could do that the way the current BMC is set up. No way.
          If you want to write direct shoot your 1st feature for festivals or straight to video with a business that will produce commercials and or corporate, have set up a small production company with a bit of a cash flow, say $10k-15 all in, I can see the allure to own. It’s logical. But spectacular clean images with increased DR and 12 stops does not show up on Youtube on Vimeo were most of your work will finally end up.

          • “But spectacular clean images with increased DR and 12 stops does not show up on Youtube on Vimeo were most of your work will finally end up.”

            But it totally does show up, you can see the difference in that comparison video above. That video is on Vimeo, and the differences are there to be seen. I can see an argument to be made that those differences aren’t important, or that one image looks better than the other, with is interesting… Reminds me of when people used to discuss which film stocks to use.

      • this to me says it best, if you run a small one or two man crew and edit solo the BMC is a lot to deal with just for a few more stops and increased DR.

    • ahhh you guys are so used with apple plug and play products, dont expect creating an outstanding image without massaging it in post, yes, It’s a lot of work like in any good image film you ever seen. If you can’t handle or don’t have the skills, don’t get it, you can always keep you Canon and select “Nature Picture Profile” get some 20 meg file and stick in your edit.
      6k after you gear up, yes could be maybe 3.5k or 4k or even 12k, it depends of what you gonna buy, there’s tons of options out there, TONS.
      Again don’t get this camera if you doing wedding vids, or cheap docs, it’s not worth it.

    • Daniel Mimura on 09.30.12 @ 10:41PM

      I’m working on a feature doc right now on a DSLR. I want a deeper depth of field and more latitude. Docs used to be on 16, and then after that, on small sensor video cameras! So now we’re stuck with D-SLR docs with way too shallow depth of fields for what’s often forced to be handheld and in available light (i’m just talking about handheld in this context to point out that the focus is changing rapidly and fluidly…unlike a sit down interview, where a super-35 or fullframe sensor is often just fine).

      How is a BMCC *not* better for these things?

      Hate hate hate the small latitude, especially for day exteriors…for indoor interviews with a bunch of lights, sure, but when you have to cover events (this is a music doc with live shows, some of which are outdoors in direct sun)

      Blackmagic all the way, for features or docs…for it’s price range.

      I’m not entirely sold on it…the jacks sticking out in my face on the smart side is gonna drive me crazy, and I’m not looking forward to the smaller sensor (for the features…for the doc, I welcome it—especially since my subjects are twins and I try to keep them both in the shot whenever possible b/c it’s often about how they interact with each other.) When I rack focus to chose one over the other, I don’t want to be the one making these decisions (I think it’s better for the director and the audience to do that).

      Anyway, until something better in it’s price range comes along, I’m all for it.

      Someone said something about it taking like $6K to make it actually *work*…well, isn’t that what everyone has already been doing—on board recorders…external monitors to actually focus it, batteries to power the external monitors…cages to give it some weight and balance… I’ve long exceeded $6k with that stuff long already. I’ve even got the SSD’s from using the Hyperdeck Shuttle (which has equally annoying jacks/buttons sticking out on opposite sides)…SSD is a smart move away from the obvious limits of SD/CF. Red left behind CF because of it’s obvious bottlenecks.

      I’m still not seeing anyone on these threads mention the fact that we’re getting HD-SDI instead of crap HDMI for a $3k camera. The AF100 is the cheapest other option I can think of in this ballpark to offer it, and this far exceeds what that camera can do, natively or with external add-ons.

      BMCC is a no brainer.

  • I would say that the main problem of BMCC is the size of sensor, regarding the wideangle lens you have to use to get the desired field of view. With a small sensor the crop factor is bigger, so for wide fields of view, a wider angle lens is needed, compared to a full frame camera. And since we mostly use the 24mm-70mm range of focal lengths (35mm equivalent), this means that in BMCC we need to get a 11mm lens to match the lower end of that range. Now from what I can recall, you don’t get lenses with an f/stop 2.8 with less than $600 at 11mm, while you have a pretty good variety of lenses at 24mm with that apperture, that could be found with less money. To me this and the shallower depth of field would be the only two reasons I would choose 5D3 over BMCC.
    As for dynamic range, don’t forget to mention the HDRvideo that Magic Lantern hack offers in the canon cameras. It sets new standards in the market to my mind…

  • I downloaded the original source file from Vimeo.. and, O my god! The BMC footage is so crisp.. so beautiful!
    Especially, the opening shots of the video just gave me goosebumps!! They reminded me of the opening shots from ‘The Last Samurai’.

    All is clear now. Only, I need to understand if I should get an EF or an MFT mount on the BMC?!

Comments pages: [1] 2 3